Re: I-D Action: draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids-00.txt

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 5:36 PM, <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > Your statement does not mean much unless you define "public". The
> difference between RFC 4941 addresses and other addresses is not are that
> RFC 4941 addresses are not persistent.
>
> IPv6 addresses are not persistent. they are all ephemeral. it is just a
> matter of the lifetime.
>

Right, but there are many orders of magnitude differences between EUI-64
(~= life of the device) and RFC4941 (1 day).


> a public address is one registered in DNS or some other external registry.
> I would argue that the address you use to reach facebook (and thereby
> couple address and identity) you have made that address a public address.
>

I don't think it's the same. The DNS comes with no expectation of privacy.
If you use an address to talk to Facebook, it's not public in that people
cannot look it up. Facebook knows it, just like everyone else whom you
choose to talk to knows the address you used to talk to them. Your ISP
might know it. The NSA might know it. But again, what's the threat model?
Facebook telling someone else what address you used? For what purpose, and
what would happen if it did?


> I think a "this prefix is dedicated to you" flag in the RA would be useful.
>
> that would likely require a change to the subnet model.
>

Really? How is it different from, say, 127.0.0.0/8, or the delegated subnet
on a CPE router?


> > That's NOT RECOMMENDED by draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability.
>
> it doesn't really matter if that draft says that. in reality there is a
> limit. an address can either fail silently (possibly with an ICMP) or
> explicitly.
>

I think failing silently is better.